rent stabilized tenant

No

And at $3,335 a month current carry how much is it worth even without the tenant??

And what's the story with those special assessments!?

Nope. And keep in mind even if the tenant is elderly that does not guarantee you will be able to take back the unit once he or she passes. They could allow a family member move in with them and that person could essentially inherit the right to continue living in the unit with the same stabilized rent even after the original tenant is gone.

Buying single unit occupied Coop deals died with the tax changes of 1986.

Suppose no one is willing to buy such a unit, even for $1. Are owners allowed to abandon the unit in some way, and if so, what happens?

The co-op has first lien against unpaid charges levied against units, so if the owner (the sponsor, in this case) totally walked away and didn't pay maintenance, the co-op could file a claim for tenant in arrears and ultimately take over the unit. (assumes the sponsor's ownership of the physical unit was converted to shares in the co-op at the time of conversion, and thus the sponsor is held to some proprietary lease of the space).

I personally know of a building that had 20% of units abandoned by the original sponsor at some time point. The coop took over these apartments and sold the apartment after the tenant left (mostly due to death). I don't seem to hear of any tenant having some one else to inherit the apartment after the death.

If you don't pay the common charges, the Board can sue you in addition to taking the unit. You are personally liable. This is one reason that many coops don't allow LLC purchases. The situation is also why many people try (and fail) to abandon their timeshares.

Almost every Coop Offering Plan has a section regarding handing your shares back to the Coop. I would be guided by whatever the particular language is in whatever Coop you're interested in.

A very specific case I know of was 55 Liberty St. There was a huge capital project to restore the terra cotta facade which resulted in a large assessment. I went to an auction held by the Coop where ~8 shareholders were walking away from units rather than pay the assessment.

Aaron2,
I don't understand your statement:
"assumes the sponsor's ownership of the physical unit was converted to shares in the co-op at the time of conversion, and thus the sponsor is held to some proprietary lease of the space"

Are you aware of Coop conversions of Rent Stabilized buildings where residential units were not converted to some form of ownership? When the Sponsor transferred the ownership of the entire building (or residential Condo unit) to the Coop Corporation what kind of ownership would they retain in the unit if it weren't issued shares and a proprietary lease?

Woodsidenyc,
There have been a non-insignificant number of Co-ops whose sponsors went out for whatever reasons. The buildings my office moved to a bit over a year ago 328-334 West 17th Street foreclosed on the shared themselves and brought in an outside investor, The Cheshire Group, under a money splitting arrangement to manage keeping the Coop afloat while selling off units as they came available. Most of the time when Sponsors go out they have bank financing and get taken out by that. I believe the same Sponsor went belly up on both Chelsea Gardens and Gramercy House and got banned from doing any future conversions. For a while I was selling units for all 3 of the banks when took over various units in GH. Similarly for 300 West 23rd St where I sold a number of units for Lincoln Savings Bank, including a nice corner 1 br to an agent in my office for $75k (It was on the second floor facing both 23rd Street and 8th Avenue so it was a tough sale). Most of the Coops in Tudor City had Sponsor issues which caused a considerable amount of price distress (I don't know if I can count the number of studios I sold there between $8k and $25k) but I think Keith had a listing in Hardeick Hall a couple of years back where he explained that they came through in the ends very well financially.

Most of the MJ Raynes Coops (Eastgate, Southgate, 2 Horatio St, etc) had some pain as well.

@30yrs: I don't know of any situations where the sponsor held units outside the co-op, post-conversion, but, NY being a land of sharp elbowed and smart real estate people, figured there might have been some odd conversion I wasn't aware of, so caveated my statement.

I knew owners at 55 Liberty at the time of their terra cotta problems.

No, as a rent-stabilized tenant, the tenant has legal protections and cannot be displaced by a new owner converting the unit to their primary residence. Rent-stabilized tenants have the right to renew their lease and remain in the unit as long as they meet the criteria for rent-stabilized status under New York City law.

Here's another one
https://streeteasy.com/building/280-west-12th-street--new_york/1e?context%5Bcontroller%5D=%23%3CBuildingController%3A0x000055963a18e3d8%3E&context%5Bcurrent_user%5D=1040784&hide_if_empty=true&section=sales&separate_sponsors=false

come on, why would you be soo cruel?

at least in the last one, the costs are less than the rent.

but when it is not the case, like with the unit I posted, what is the city's rationale for allowing this to go on?

Who says that the city need to behave rational manner?

Who says that the city needs to behave in a rational manner?

Great discussion, I went down a rab bit hole with some of the details posted by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO regarding MJ Raynes Coops (Eastgate, Southgate, 2 Horatio) and Chelsea Gardens and Grammercy House and 300 West 23rd St.

2 Horatio is in a great area, but Eastgate and Southgate, what is the profile of the type of owners and purchasers there?